He sounds like a bit of a legend.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
He sounds like a bit of a legend.
Custodial sentence?
One day I'll have to just stop following the news.
It's almost as if the judicial branch are still struggling to work the internet out.
https://order-order.com/2017/07/12/w...ees-hypocrisy/
That's going to go well for them.
Well I lolled.
Uncanny.
https://www.ft.com/content/1d500f02-...6-7b38dcaef614
By basing its European headquarters in Dublin and channelling its profits through Ireland, Google was able to pay only €5m in corporate tax in France in 2014 compared with revenues that year of €225.4m, according to the company’s filings.
I can't read the article - but what on earth is the FT doing making such a basic mistake - is their any justification in the article?Originally Posted by GS
None, unfortunately. Then again, it was a story about how Google have successfully challenged a billion-plus fine that originally arose because of their tax-avoidance activities, so you suspect the journalist in question was SEETHING and wanted to make a point.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/...out-for-boris/
One for you, Floyd.
I personally think the answer lies on the back benches. Somebody without baggage.
I'd agree. The problem is they're not going from the backbenches to No 10 and doing so without cabinet experience. So unless May promotes new people now you're going to have to look in the current cabinet.
It'd be different in opposition. I still think they'll end up with Davis through lack of other serious options.
Are you? Jeremy seemed to manage.
It's fine if you're in opposition. Not when you're going straight into the post-Brexit clusterfuck.
David Davis is about ten years older than I thought he was, so realistically he is out. I saw somebody touting the other Johnson recently. That could work.
He even looks like a mid-ranking Nazi, so should be right at home in the corridors of Brussels.
Davis' age might let him get the backing of younger MPs though, because everybody knows he's not going to do a Cameron-style eleven year stint.
Davis is fucking awful. I don't know how people don't see through him. I'd rather have Clay Davis.
All of the prospective options are terrible.
That's a given since they're Tories...
The OBR have their latest fiscal risk analysis out, which some of you may find interesting: here
The revenue risks section, beginning on page 93, is instructive. One of its key conclusions is that we're over-reliant on income from high-earning individuals, and our receipts are thus susceptible to economic shocks that impact higher earners to a greater degree:
5.128 Changes in the tax regime over recent years have seen tax receipts concentrated among an increasingly small number of individuals. Between 2007-08 and 2017-18, the number of income tax payers is expected to fall from 32.5 to 30.3 million, with the proportion of tax paid by the top 1 per cent of taxpayers rising from 24.4 to 27.7 per cent. Receipts have also become more reliant on volatile and highly concentrated taxes such as SDLT and CGT, which have together doubled to 1.0 per cent of GDP since the financial crisis and where the top few per cent of transactions account for more than half of receipts.
5.129 In the medium term, this makes our receipts forecasts particularly vulnerable to shocks that affect high earners (like a potential negative impact of Brexit on the financial sector) or crises that hit asset markets (such as in the stress test in Chapter 9). In the long term, increasing reliance on a small number of taxpayers is likely to make receipts more volatile and harder to forecast, especially as high earners are more mobile and have greater scope to plan their tax affairs.
5.130 In terms of some of the characteristics set out in Chapter 1, the risks of concentration have built up gradually and continuously over the past decade, mainly as a consequence of incremental changes to the tax system. They are largely endogenous, reflecting mainly Government policy decisions to the structure of tax systems. Concentration is also correlated with macroeconomic risks, as it magnifies the effect on receipts of a variety of shocks, particularly those on earnings and asset prices.
I thought you didn't believe in financial forecasting because it's always bollocks?
Forecasts are only as good as the assumptions you put in. They're never going to be right, but the discrepancy between forecast and actual can be controlled, to a reasonable level, by how sensible your assumptions are.
You'll find, should you read the document, that their analysis is heavily based on historical trend and actual data available (e.g. CGT). They're also a neutral body with no agenda to push.
Fraser Nelson always posts that statistic about the highest earners paying loads of tax, and then you get a bunch of wallies calling it proof that even higher rates are required. Think it through, and then try again.
Much like Martin Lewis and tuition fees, then.
Private Eye is great.
That image took ages to load for me but I already knew what it was going to be.
It looks like Spreadsheet Phil could be about to embroil himself in a SEXISM row. Forty years ago, everybody would just have laughed with him and piled in.
I didn't really take that in properly at first and for some reason thought it said 'sex scandal' rather than 'sexism row'. That'd have been more fun.
More fun until Edwina Currie's role came to light, then just horrifying.
To be fair, it would be the most interesting thing that Spreadsheet Phil has ever said so fair play to him.
In other news, lol:
Tbf, I looked up Hammond's wife and he's punching quite a bit above his weight so he definitely shouldn't be getting himself into any sex scandals.
I saw a job advert for a relatively minor role in London transport the other day and the benefits that came with it were mental. Free London travel for you and a designated mate, private healthcare (lol), discounts coming out of your arse... If pay gap nonsense is to be believed then women could never stand a chance of negotiating those perks for themselves, so not only is he a sexist he is a wrong sexist.
I think if people truly understood some of the benefits that people are getting in the public sector, there would be far less aggravation over AUSTERITY.
Someone was bemoaning a similar thing to me yesterday, that public sector workers get paid up to 25% more than their private sector counterparts [he had it being down to the relative equality in pay across very unequal regions] which is why you see some areas where virtually every bugger [who works] working for the state. I've no idea how true that is, although it does seem to be borne out by some older newspaper claims. No pay rises though. Just massively inflated pay in the first place.
Yeah, I'd rather not think what the DWP fellas are being paid.
War criminal Tony Blair has had another go at Corbyn. Should do him good.
Remember when the Eurosceptics were the mentalists?
If we're being balanced.
They've also got very advantageous pensions, which most private sector employers can't afford to match.
As an aside, your point on massively inflated pay to begin with is fair. I read the other day that when you control for various factors (e.g. education), public sector pay is still about 3% higher than the private sector. The gap between the two is normalising. It's much the same as using 2007/08 financial figures as a comparative base. It's all fair and well saying that, for example, private sector or public sector pay hasn't increased since then. The reality, however, is that the entire economy was built on air for several years so people were getting pay increases / remuneration packages that were utterly unsustainable. Certain things may have stagnated, but that's a reflection of the unsustainably inflated nature of it to begin with.
It's also worth pointing out that public sector workers, even if their pay was frozen for two years and then increasing by 1% thereafter, would be taking home substantially more than 2010 owing to changes in income tax and NIC. Someone on £15K a year will have seen their actual take home increase by £2.1K (18% or 2.0% p.a. equivalent) over that period. Even someone on £27K, which is around the average wage, has had over a 13% increase in take-home (or 1.6% p.a. equivalent).
Obviously the tax changes have been far more beneficial to lower earners, but the changes in the tax system mean that it benefits all lower earners in take-home. If we'd used the cash to fund public sector pay increases instead, we'd simply have shafted the private sector further.
I'm not averse to public sector pay increases where there's a retention issue, but there really needs to be a sensible discussion about what the actual situation is relative to private sector packages.
I'm not sure what he hopes to achieve with it. He mustn't realise his contributions are counter-productive.
Having some sort of regional pay system would presumably take a lot of the problems away. You can sympathise with people in the South East being shat on by rents and what have you, but up here the existing increases will obviously go a lot further.
Elsewhere, Nick Clegg reckons there should be another referendum, but this time the under-thirties get two votes. That would establish an interesting precedent as to who has the greater interest in society.
There's already a London-based increment to public sector pay, as far as I'm aware - but none elsewhere. As you say, they should overhaul public sector pay by introducing regional rates but they should also sack off 'equality' and bring in performance related pay elements. It would help to tackle retention issues by incentivising workers.
The issue would be forcing regional rates through. People in Hull would presumably go apeshit, whilst those in the south-east would be fully behind it. You'd never get away with cutting salaries, so you'd end up capping it for years in shitter areas whilst the cash was ploughed into the south-east, London etc. until the two reached a 'normalised' level relative to housing and living costs in those areas.
It'd never last, because sound public finances can be overlooked in pursuit of votes, and we'd end up in the same place again.
Two votes for the under 30s? There are no words.
I'm sure you could sell increased pay for Southerners with appeals to union solidarity.
Perhaps, but then you'd have Labour claiming it's "unequal", "a disgrace" and "clear politicking to cap wages in Labour areas". The politics of the thing is inescapable, unfortunately. One need only look at the way masses swallowed the Corbyn manifesto and asked for seconds to see how critical analysis of policies barely matters any more.
I thought Lewis was joking.
We should have voting determined by how much taxation you're paying. Pay Taxation, Have Representation. There's your slogan. We can disenfranchise people who expect something for nothing then.
Who would Lewis vote for then?I thought Lewis was joking.
We should have voting determined by how much taxation you're paying. Pay Taxation, Have Representation. There's your slogan. We can disenfranchise people who expect something for nothing then.
I haven't worked out the details, but presumably you'd have exceptions for people who would vote Conservative.
Lol what. So the rich would dictate our lives.I thought Lewis was joking.
We should have voting determined by how much taxation you're paying. Pay Taxation, Have Representation. There's your slogan. We can disenfranchise people who expect something for nothing then.
#nodifference #richdontpaytaxanyway
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote